argument36 求拍 有拍必回 真的

mqi07UID: 2521740

36.The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an
anthropologist.

"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with hildren living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biolcal parents than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."



In this argument, the arguer concludes that DF's observation-centeres(OC) way to studing cultures is invalid. He justifies this claim by citing the facts:(1)his recent study about TVC show that children inTV spend much more time to talk their parents than other adults in TV; (2)the author's team will get a more accurate understanding of the child-rearing tradition(CT) based on their interview-cencered(IC) method to study the CT. A careful examination of the evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to this claim. The argument contains several facets that are questionable, as discussed below.

To begin with, the author falsely assumes that talking more about their parents indicates that the children were reared by them.Perhaps they talke more about their parents only because  the interviewer asked questions high concerning  them. Or perhaps  they just wanted to show the ousiders that they still have a very close relationship with their parents even though they are not reared by their parents. In short, without a clear explanation of why the TV's children talk more about their parents in the auhtor's interview, it is impossible to conclude with any confidence that talking more about the parents equals  that the children are reared by their parents,

Even assuming that TV' children talking more about their parents proves that thay are raised up by their parents, it is unreasonable to claim that the DF's OC apporach is invalid. For example, we are not informed the key information about the DF's OC apporach.  For example,the author does not provide the fact that  how the OC approach was conducted and how broad the method was applied. Perhaps DF applied his OC approach to a fairly broad area and a large population , of which TC was only a small part. If this is the case, then TC could not  be representative of the whole group and therefore it is unjustifiable to claim that OC method is invalid. In fact, in face of such limited evidenve, it is fallacious to any conclusion at all.

Finally, no evidence guarantees that DK's team will get a more accurate understanding of the TV's culture only based on using the IC method. For example, the feasibility of the interview with the local people is still questionable.. Maybe the residents would not like to talk with strangers or to be interviewed, then the results of the iterview  would be incredible. It is might  also be the case that  the people interviewed cannot represent the whole lsiand's residents, then it is unsubstantiated to conclude that  DK's team will establish a more accurate understanding of OTC.

As it stands, the author cannot warrant his claim on the basis of the scant evidences mentioned in the argument. To make it logically acceptable, the author must provide more facts that how DF's IC method was conducted ,and why TV's children spend more time talking their parents than other adults. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the claim untill the author can offer concrete evidence that the IC method can definitely guarantee that the author's team will get a more accurate understanding of CT, otherwise, the arguer is just begging the question throughout the argument.

用了一个多小时 530词  
请指教

StrayCrowUID: 2348763

36.The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an
anthropologist.

"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with hildren living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biolcal parents than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."


字体红色但是没有解释的 都是语法错误或者使用不当

In this argument, the arguer concludes that DF's observation-centeres(OC) way to studing(studying) cultures is invalid 其实这篇argument的结论并不好提炼 你现在这个结论我个人觉得稍微简单了点 个人觉得最后一句 就是interview-centered method is effective也是结论之一 而且很有对比. He(he or she) justifies this claim by citing the facts:(1)his recent study about TVC show that children inTV spend much more time to talk their parents than other adults in TV; (2)the author's team will get a more accurate understanding of the child-rearing tradition(CT) based on their interview-cencered(IC) method to study the CT 个人这里列这点不是很好 至少这句话本身就有作者主观意愿与fact客观实例之间有区别. A careful examination of the evidence, however, reveals that it lends(这里和前面都用复数比较好) little credible support to this claim. The argument contains several facets that are questionable, as discussed below. 最后一句稍显多余 还要加强argument结论和fact提炼能力 其实我个人觉得 提炼作者的证据其实挺难的 因为要改写 这样开头挺花时间 但是也有好处 后面批驳的时候 感觉思路会更清晰

To begin with, the author falsely assumes that talking more about their parents indicates that the children were reared by them.Perhaps they talke more about their parents only because  the interviewer asked questions high concerning  them. 这个点不错Or perhaps  they just wanted to show the ousiders that they still have a very close relationship with their parents even though they are not reared by their parents. 相当好 In short, without a clear explanation of why the TV's children talk more about their parents in the auhtor's interview, it is impossible to conclude with any confidence that talking more about the parents equals  that the children are reared by their parents, 你的两个批驳例子都相当精彩 不过我觉得既然这么有亮点为什么不再多说点呢 从更深层次去挖掘一下 就是taking more about parents 受调查方调查时候的倾向性很大 与谈话内容关系很大 与受访者的心理因素关系很大 并不客观等等

Even assuming that TV' children talking more about their parents proves that thay are raised up by their parents应该说受父母抚养大于受整个村庄培养比较好 毕竟是在和field博士的理论比较,  it is unreasonable to claim that the DF's OC apporach is invalid. For example, we are not informed the key information about the DF's OC apporach.  For example,the author does not provide the fact that  how the OC approach was conducted and how broad the method was applied. Perhaps DF applied his OC approach to a fairly broad area and a large population , of which TC was only a small part. If this is the case, then TC could not  be representative of the whole group and therefore it is unjustifiable to claim that OC method is invalid. In fact, in face of such limited evidenve, it is fallacious to any conclusion at all. 其实这个漏洞很大 你完全可以批得更狠一点 即使博士的结论错了 但是未必方法也错 而事实上 观察法显然更客观 而且这种方法已经广泛应用于对文化的研究云云 你可以说也许博士来的时候孩子是村庄集体培养 但是这几年收到现代化新科技影响 才变成双亲影响 并不是博士的方法问题

Finally, no evidence guarantees that DK's team will get a more accurate understanding of the TV's culture only based on using the IC method. For example, the feasibility of the interview with the local people is still questionable.. Maybe the residents would not like to talk with strangers or to be interviewed, then the results of the iterview  would be incredible. It is might  also be the case that  the people interviewed cannot represent the whole lsiand's residents, then it is unsubstantiated to conclude that  DK's team will establish a more accurate understanding of OTC. 还是和上一段一样我觉得你批驳太轻了 不知道你看见这篇argument自己的感觉是什么 我就觉得显然是观察法更加客观 因为访谈本身受人为因素干扰太大 有各种各样的倾向性 其实你可以抓住这点深入下去 这样考官才会眼前一亮 如果只是来几个反驳的例子 有点平淡了

As it stands, the author cannot warrant his claim on the basis of the scant evidences mentioned in the argument. To make it logically acceptable, the author must provide more facts that how DF's IC method was conducted ,and why TV's children spend more time talking their parents than other adults. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the claim untill the author can offer concrete evidence that the IC method can definitely guarantee that the author's team will get a more accurate understanding of CT, otherwise, the arguer is just begging the question throughout the argument.

不知道你有没有注意到 你这5段的长度是如此的均匀 实在是太协调了
而这就是你的问题 其实agrument的批驳里面我觉得开头和结尾 因为有模板因素 价值不大
影响你得分的就是中间三段批驳
而你三段批驳都是点到为止 欲言又止 其实我个人觉得你全文批驳的例子都很精彩 可为什么都选择了浅尝辄止呢？
你完全可以深入深入再深入 即使只有一段这样也好 因为这样你的文章就有亮点了 很有可能就是这个亮点给了你高分
此外有一点 我觉得你要改掉 就是不要这样疯狂的用缩写
文章是写给考官看的 他才不会有耐心去仔细领会你的缩写背后是什么 我觉得缩写的确能节约时间
但是最多只能缩写地名 而你却将这篇文章的key 两个研究方法都缩写了 我觉得这个实在是大忌
加油加油
我觉得你很有潜力
你的思维很有意思 所以批驳的例子都很棒
什么时候考试？

mqi07UID: 2521740

超级感谢你一针见血的指出我的问题所在
这对我真的是太重要了
我觉得你说的 批驳段要有主有次特别重要
还有缩写问题 是因为我打的真的很慢 我会改正的
我20号就考了 ISSUE还没开始弄 真的是不拼不行了

kingploughUID: 2492921

千万不要把时间过多地浪费在开头和结尾上！
楼主可以单独训练5分钟内写完开头结尾！

提炼作者的证据其实挺难的 因为要改写 这样开头挺花时间 但是也有好处 后面批驳的时候 感觉思路会更清晰

如果楼主马上就要考了，这个好处还是不要的好！在考试的时候你酱紫写完开头，中间根本来不及。开头抓住最主要的意思说一下，表明立场就可以了！

[ 本帖最后由 kingplough 于 2008-10-7 00:17 编辑 ]

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

现在被10G折磨 没时间直接下手改了

用一个珍藏的软件给你扫描了一遍 这个只是文法上的检查 不涉及思路

E-R的操作机理不太清楚 但是这个MS比较类似

不过GRAMMER错误可能是由于软件的bug造成的 有很多乱码的说

kingploughUID: 2492921

斑竹，把这个软件传给我吧

mqi07UID: 2521740

kingplough :
确实啊 这个开头很费时间 我每次写开头就脑袋疼
我去找找别的开头
你有什么推荐的吗? 我都用习惯了

斑竹: 我也想要这个软件 能发到我邮箱不 manqizhang@sina.com

StrayCrowUID: 2348763

斑竹 我也想要软件～